Kotaku has some perspective on sales of Bulletstorm from Epic president Mike Capps, after hearing from EA that People Can Fly's recent first-person shooter "under-performed," and learning from a financial analyst that the game barely sold 300,000 units in its first month of availability. Capps confirms that the game didn't make them any money, but still thinks it was a worthy project as he looks ahead to PCF's next project. They paraphrase him saying: "Capps says they could have taken the easy route all along, not done Bulletstorm and gotten People Can Fly, the Epic-owned Polish development studio on that game to just chrun [sic] out Gears of War content. That's not what he wants those folks doing. That's not what he wants Epic doing." They also offer a direct quote. "The studio has shipped AAA content," he said. "The next thing we do with People Can Fly will be great."

By your theory, if your half dozen games without jump means that people don't care if a game has jump or not, then I guess the several dozen games with jump that have sold way way more than any of your Tom Clancy games, means that is factual evidence to support my opinion.

No, that doesn't really make any sense. You've been arguing that the ability to jump is essential to shooters and that the modern audience shares your opinion. If this were true, then the absence of jump in any shooter would be received with harsh criticism and result in lackluster sales for said game. Positive reviews and impressive sales of R6, GR, Dead Space, Mass Effect, GoW, etc, prove otherwise. Conversely, the presence of jump in shooters that sell well doesn't prove that modern audiences consider jumping essential. It just proves that a lot of shooters have jumping, in addition to many other design choices that consumers consider more important.

As analogy, imagine if I argued that people with brown eyes are considered ugly by modern society. As evidence, I'd show you pictures of ugly people with brown eyes. In order to prove me wrong, all you'd have to do is point out all the models, actresses and celebrities with brown eyes. Since female celebrities are generally considered attractive, their mainstream glorification is sufficient proof that brown eyes don't make people ugly. I could show you thousands of pictures of ugly women with brown eyes but it wouldn't negate your evidence.

To summarize: It's easy for me to prove that modern shooters can sell well despite their lack of jumping. However, it's quite a bit more difficult for you prove that modern shooters sell well because they have jumping.

In order to prove my argument, I need only provide proof of the following:

A) The game sold well.B) The game did not have jumping.

In order for you to prove your argument, you'd need to provide proof of the following:

A) The game sold well.B) The game had jumping.C) The presence of jumping was an important factor in the game's sales.

Good luck proving C.

And please don't respond to this by saying "It's an opinion! I don't need to prove anything!" According to that logic, I could argue that the world is flat, you could prove otherwise, then I could just say that you can't prove my opinion wrong. There are two types of opinions: those that are completely subjective (like a preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla) and those formed around a person's knowledge (I dislike military shooters because they all have the same weapons, vehicles, setting, factions, premise, etc). The first type of opinion cannot be disputed because it is completely subjective. I can't prove that you prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla or vice versa. On the other hand, if the second type of opinion is based on inaccurate beliefs or faulty logic, it can be disputed. If I said that CoD 2010 was another generic military shooter and you provided irrefutable evidence that it was in fact an innovative puzzle-platformer, my opinion would be invalidated.

No, there is a handful and most of them are from the same Tom Clancy family of games.

Jerykk wrote on Jul 28, 2011, 18:44:There is no factual evidence that supports your opinion.

You mean other than the dozens of shooters released in the last 10 years that do have jump, have sold way more than any of the Tom Clancy games have, versus the half dozen or so that you listed that don't have jump?

By your theory, if your half dozen games without jump means that people don't care if a game has jump or not, then I guess the several dozen games with jump that have sold way way more than any of your Tom Clancy games, means that is factual evidence to support my opinion.

Now, do you see how fucking ridiculously stupid your so called evidence is? If you don't agree with me, then it automatically cancels out your own "proof". So either way, your argument is asinine.

You did not disprove anything related to my OPINION that MOST gamers expect jump in their shooters, you simply cannot disprove it because there is no official data, nor can I prove it...which is why it's my opinion and not a fact.

Except I have disproved it. There are quite a few modern shooters without jump and most of these have sold at least a million units. That alone is sufficient proof that modern audiences don't value jumping as much as you do.

Opinions need to have some basis on fact. There is no factual evidence that supports your opinion. There is factual evidence that supports mine.

Verno wrote on Jul 28, 2011, 10:17:Throwing stones in a glass house nin. You post contentless nonsense all the time and troll other posters just as heavily as anyone else, you just lack the maturity to hold yourself responsible so you post and run. Some people actually like hearing other peoples opinions, even if they don't agree with them. Dagok and I historically don't get along for example but I like reading his opinions nonetheless. If reading text is so painful by the way you should try something else like childrens books.

No actually you didn't. You eventually provided a handful of examples of games that did not have jump. You did not disprove anything related to my OPINION that MOST gamers expect jump in their shooters, you simply cannot disprove it because there is no official data, nor can I prove it...which is why it's my opinion and not a fact.

Your opinion is that jump is not needed. You are welcome to it. But in no way does you stating your opinion magically cancel out my own. But as already established, this is not a concept you understand.

But to be clear, so you do not get all riled up again, that is my OPINION, as I do not like that type of gameplay.

Yes, we've already established that. The problem is that you also claimed that modern audiences (not just you) demand the ability to jump in their shooters. The examples I provided proved otherwise. There's a significant difference between saying "I expect" and "modern audiences expect."

Throwing stones in a glass house nin. You post contentless nonsense all the time and troll other posters just as heavily as anyone else, you just lack the maturity to hold yourself responsible so you post and run. Some people actually like hearing other peoples opinions, even if they don't agree with them. Dagok and I historically don't get along for example but I like reading his opinions nonetheless. If reading text is so painful by the way you should try something else like childrens books.

Jerykk wrote on Jul 27, 2011, 18:09:This is a good example of you forming an opinion based on inaccurate information. R6:3, R6:Vegas 1&2, GRAW 1&2 and SWAT 4 all came out within the past 10 years.

What is inaccurate? I never said there weren't any, I said there were few to none. A few games that didn't have jump were released, out of how many dozens? You sure got me, but only after you gave 2 other sets of failed examples and floundered to discredit my opinion on the jump mechanic, rather than just sharing your opposing opinion as to why jump is not needed in modern games.

As I already stated, none of those games I considered to be good. The rigid controls turned me off after the original R6, considering there were what I consider far better alternatives over the last 10 years. As far as I'm concerned those examples only strengthen my opinion about the positive effect the jump mechanic brings to shooters.

But to be clear, so you do not get all riled up again, that is my OPINION, as I do not like that type of gameplay.

You chimed in with your 10+ year old games as examples, which was completely idiotic, since they are NOT modern shooters. Then the next set of examples you gave, none of which were first person shooters.

This is a good example of you forming an opinion based on inaccurate information.

R6:3, R6:Vegas 1&2, GRAW 1&2 and SWAT 4 all came out within the past 10 years. Check the release dates for each one. They are also all first-person shooters (GRAW was first-person on PC). Again, check your facts.

They are not based on false information, nor have I tried to present any opinions as fact for you to suggest as such.

If you disagree, deal with it.

Nobody owes you any further explanation.

I didn't want to get into a point by point debate with you, because look what you have done with my comments regarding just the Jump mechanic. You latched onto it and are vehemently debating it with no objectivity at all. Instead you attack me and my opinions with bullshit about there being "no fact, inaccurate generalizations and comparisons".

I never made any comparisons. StingingVelvet and you did. Both of which were very very questionable, as Stinging used Quake 2 in a negative light for feature comparisons. A game that has freedom of movement, jump, duck, grapple (ctf). I made my comment to him because what he was suggesting was that modern shooters should be getting away from that freedom of movement in game design with his comment.

You chimed in with your 10+ year old games as examples, which was completely idiotic, since they are NOT modern shooters. Then the next set of examples you gave, none of which were first person shooters.

I can only imagine what you would have done if I had gone through each feature point by point like you wanted me to...

No, I mean you literally posted slide when I had already included it, its even in your quote.

Yeah, I saw that after, but you also said "I doubt that" when my post was saying they had a choice to make due to console controller button limitations.I don't think a single person will deny that. The question is whether it truly matters, and if so by how much.